Deus ex machina

In Response to Stacey (What is the most important value in literature?)

                I enjoyed reading Stacey’s post on the important values of literature because she offered a perspective that is not usually taken. More specifically, she represented the catharsis view of literature, which is an important aspect of all forms of expression; at least in my view it is. Stacey points out that catharsis is a crucial aspect of what makes literature such an effective medium for expression. I agree, but I also agree with Krystal’s later response, where she pointed out that, in order for this to occur, the work must have an emotional impact on the reader. It does seem that the affective component of the reader must be altered in order for catharsis to occur, but this process also seems more complicated than this. It seems that the events in the book must be something that the reader is interested in; although, this probably goes hand-in-hand with the emotional impact. 

In Response to Nicole (“Educational Use of Books”)

I felt that Nicole’s post was great because it raised a question about Siegel’s writing that I would not have thought about before. Although, before I go on, I should point out that Siegel probably answered the question raised in the other chapters of the book we took last week’s reading out of.  

“Either he never stipulates that he thinks that all books are educational and teach people who to think critically, or he is only referring to a group of books which fulfill his own standards of teaching.”

From looking at these two options, I would go with the latter claim. I do not think Siegel was referring to all books. However, if he were referring to a group of books, I have a feeling that he would follow the Nussbaum approach and not identify exactly what type of book that he is referring to…

The autobiography of Malcolm X—A work of literature?

                First of all, I have to thank Nicole for the idea of this post. Those that are close friends with me know that I have a great affinity towards Malcolm X. His autobiography is still to this day one of my favorite books of all time. However, as of recently, I have not really thought of the book as much. This was until Nicole has repeatedly brought it up in her discussion on the relationship between philosophy and literature. For example, In Nicole’s presentation at the philosophy mini-conference, someone asked for an example illustrating literatures ability to influence readers. Nicole surprised me when she said the name Malcolm X. I must say that I was really excited, but, nevertheless, I was surprised. I believe that Nicole mentioned Malcolm because of the influence that Elijah Muhammad writing had on him as a man, and, the influence that Malcolm X’s biography has had on the lives of millions of others.  I had never thought of this book as a work of literature before, but I think Nicole was correct. That book was pack full of aesthetic qualities, although it was a work of fiction. It truly felt as though I was reading a work of literature when reading that book. Consequently, this great book has allowed me to realize that many works of can be considered literature, and I thank Nicole for helping me understand this. 

In Response to Krystal (“History”)

            Although the title of Krystal’s blogpost is “History”, the post centers on the discussion that we had in class regarding the bias in literature. Krystal takes this idea an applies with the domain of history. According to Krystal, the history that we are all taught it very biased according to the people writing it. For example, many of our greatest heroes often had major flaws, but we rarely hear about them. The way in which history is portrayed is essentially manufactured according to a set of values.

            Likewise, I think that this concept can be applied to literature in another interesting way: the way in which we ultimately describe the others of these so-called great works of literature. For example, as a result of a piece of literature being defined as great, we may, when interpreting the piece, give the author credit where credit should not be due. If the author wrote a line that, based on in-text evidence, does not hold any significance, interpreters may state that there was underlying significance simply because of the author’s merit.

            The possible occurrence of this bias is something that I think could be valuable to add to the ongoing discussion of literature evaluation.